I went to watch CA2 and realized that I had to watch the Avengers first.

So What is it?

the lantern
thor
CA1
avengers
ironman3
CA2

Are superman and spiderman also marvel?

Inquiring minds want to know, because on a server based system they could be cataloqued as M1-M2 etc..

Green Lantern and Superman are DC comic.

This is the order you are looking for. Iron Man, Hulk (Edward Nortan version), Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2.
There is always a last scene after the credits also. I know my Dad is one of those people that shut off the movie as soon as a hint of credits start.

The BluRays started adding in Marvel One Shot Shorts some where around Iron Man 2 or Thor.

On Vudu-
The extra I thought was "The Making of..." is titled On the Set with Anthony Mackie

The other features included are-

Steve Roger's NotebookGag ReelDeleted scenes.

But I respect some people lacking a commentary listening to the main actor and the director talk about what brand coffee they drink before showing up on set is real important.

VUDU also doesn't have the ON THE FRONT LINE featurette, also included on disc. As for commentaries, I can't even count the number of directors who have stated that their "film school" consisted of filmmakers commentaries on laserdisc. Certainly, if you have little interest in the filmmaking process, why certain decisions were made across-the-board, locations, performance choices, etc. etc....then of course they are valueless. But for some of us, the commentary is the most important extra. And another reason why buying from Vudu offers less for more money. (Not totally knocking Vudu. Right now they are offering maybe 2 dozen movies for a 99-cent rental fee. Now THAT'S about what a Vudu movie should cost.)

BTW Don, you mentioned on another thread that you felt THE HOBBIT was not cropped (on the Vudu edition). I'm completely befuddled that you came to that conclusion since it is VERY obvious to me. Look again...say at the 1:12 mark...an overhead shot of a hooded man walking down the street. And look to left to the image. Not much to see, right? But if you watch the same scene in OAR, you will see that there is an active chimney spewing smoke into the air. Not a story point, to be sure. But some of the production design meant to create atmosphere and "build" a world has been eliminated. That movie is SERIOUSLY cropped ( and NOT open matte). Lord only knows how much of the dragon is missing because of it. I wouldn't pay them a dime for that. YMMV

Seems like most thought that Captain America: The Winter Soldier was the better of the two films as far the actual films went, depending on which fan you ask

What about the 3D between the two? One of these I'll get in Sept. and the other at a later time, so trying to decide which one I'd rather have first. Always decisions...

Don't have Winter Soldier yet (the 3D in the movie theater was negligible) but I did pick up Spiderman 2 last week. The 3D on that was very good, especially considering the movie was a post-conversion. The character moments have moderate depth but the 3D effect is really cranked up during the action sequences with strong depth and all manner of bullets, particle effects and debris breaking the plane of the screen.

BTW Don, you mentioned on another thread that you felt THE HOBBIT was not cropped (on the Vudu edition)... That movie is SERIOUSLY cropped ( and NOT open matte).

I don't have it on Vudu 3D but I will compare at your time point using the 2 min preview again when I get a moment. If I see what you claim then I guess it is both open matte and pan and scan and side cropped, aka all the above. Since you claim with all caps you know how the version was done, how is it possible to show content in the vertical in the Vudu 3D part I referenced and not in the 2D part? I didn't work on the set of the film so I just go by what I saw.

Quote:

I can't even count the number of directors who have stated that their "film school" consisted of filmmakers commentaries

I'm not seeking an A+ in film school. I never went to film school to get those assignments. I just worked in the TV industry for 25 years but making TV advertising programs, documentaries, and training videos. I tried to learn from directors by working for them on the job, who had successful track records making money doing the same. So what do I know? Film school graduates worked for me as interns. I'm not an artist with artistic motivation. I was in it for the business, to earn a good living, enjoying the fun aspect of it, the technical. The film school artists came to me because I would hire them and pay them for their art.

Film school graduates worked for me as interns. I'm not an artist with artistic motivation. I was in it for the business, to earn a good living, enjoying the fun aspect of it, the technical. The film school artists came to me because I would hire them and pay them for their art.

Not to belabor the point but maybe we have a difference of opinion on the technical definition of "Original Aspect Ratio" I see OAR as original film stock or camera aspect ratio. It is the starting point so it is original. From that cut, the movie is matted to the theatrical release aspect ratio. I have shot productions designed for matted release for 2.39 AR and used the 2.39 crop marks ( 2.35 on some monitors) on my 16x9 monitor showing all the camera was seeing. When we fill out the screen on some scenes the content may need to be zoomed for certain technical reasons where another release AR can be opened for additional content that was in the camera or film stock AR ( OAR). For a viewer to see one version of the film and then compare to a different version and claim he was cheated, is to say he does not understand the full production and post production process. He just sees two different end results.

It's interesting but on a completely personal level, if you compared my finished release of my projects to the original shots, probably 70% of the scenes were cropped for creative communication reasons and another 10 % for technical reasons, meaning that 80% of the "theatrical release" was cropped or matted from the OAR. In one of my videos I released in 2D and 3D I recall I had to crop down the 3D version to eliminate a foreground object that did not converge properly but was left in the 2D release in one corner since convergence was not a problem. This is just one possible explanation that there may be some legitimate reasons for the crop and not that some executive producer is just trying to cheat you out of content. LOL! Everytime I hear people talk like that I just smile as I know they don't understand from the viewpoint of film making, just from the viewer's POV.

Yes, because I insisted on the best and that they performed. Made it easy when I needed to fire them for incompetence. In fact I gave them raises and many were paid more than average joes working for minimum wages at the TV station. Many who didn't last said I was an SOB to work for. The better grips became cameramen. The better cameramen became editors. Then they would leave and become my competitors.

This is just one possible explanation that there may be some legitimate reasons for the crop and not that some executive producer is just trying to cheat you out of content. LOL! Everytime I hear people talk like that I just smile as I know they don't understand from the viewpoint of film making, just from the viewer's POV.

If it were legitimate, then the BD would be cropped. No, cropping is cropping...and the only reason SMAUG (and other movies) might have been cropped is because some secretary doesn't like "black bars." I know that Peter Jackson composed for the wider AR...perhaps an option was made for IMAX (which I did not see), but I can see where picture information is lost...and it loses a lot from what I've seen (2 mins) so far. I believe it will be cropped on HBO in a day or two, so I'll end up seeing the cropped 3D edition soon. (I'll have to wait for the extended version on disc to see it OAR, since I assume that Vudu will have that one cropped as well.)

I've been on numerous sets and I have seen how much time and effort a director and DP spend on composing their WS shots. Literally hours spent while they move things and people around to fill the frame to their satisfaction...to convey whatever their intent with a shot might be. And then, it just gets cropped by Vudu, HBO, etc. Right now, we have BD as an alternative. But IF that ever goes away, we'll be at the mercy of the venal companies messing with movies (and compromising the artist's intent)...with either no or ludicrous explanations. (just one more reason I don't support streaming).

By the way, I did let Vudu know about this movie. While companies like Netflix and Showtime would correct improperly-shown movies, Vudu basically said "This is what we are going to offer, we will make no effort to change it, so shut up and go away." My pleasure, Vudu.

Vudu basically said "This is what we are going to offer, we will make no effort to change it, so shut up and go away."

They must think you're a goofball nut case.

I did a search both on Vudu negative comments and the movie in general and the complaints mostly centered around the 48 FPS debate as well as Peter Jackson deviating way too much from the book and accusing him of just being a money grabbing evil capitalist. I knew about the 48 fps debate, but since most movies and video TV shows often deviate from the book, I was surprised at how many literary authorities on Tolkien would blast him for the movies. Of course I very rarly read movie reviews. This exercise was a reminder why. My normal SOP is to rent a new release and never research what it's all about. A few times in general discussion I will read what someone here says, like Locke, and rent it on that basis but mostly I like to be surprised and form my own opinion of whether I'm entertained or not.

Not to belabor the point but maybe we have a difference of opinion on the technical definition of "Original Aspect Ratio" I see OAR as original film stock or camera aspect ratio. It is the starting point so it is original.

"Original Aspect Ratio" refers to the ratio that the movie was composed for, not the raw capture ratio, which includes excess picture information never intended to be seen by audiences.

When this debate was all the rage in the late 90's, the logic that "Original" meant what we saw at the theater was rebutted by the fact that the directors were composing and releasing the films in as many as 3 AR's. for Theater screens and (VHS) TV. So which one was "original"? I don't recall if there ever was a final, official Theatrical AR name like TAR for Theatrical Aspect Ratio, but for over a century, the Original Aspect Ratio, of a production has been the original exposed film frame width x height. We had 16mm, super 16, 35mm and super 35. and then many others, so when digital movie making entered the industry and analog 4x3 TV evolved to HDTV's 16x9 imagers, the term Original Aspect Ratio carried, including that awkward transition time when we had broadcast TV cameras that had 4x3 imagers but offered a selection switch for "wide screen" or 16 x 9. Manufacturers were offering all sorts of design variations, so with video we started to hut for " Imager Aspect Ratio to see if the cameras had 4x3 with wide screen option or 16 x 9 with 4x3 option. Today, you just don't find 4x3 imagers being made so the cameras all just have 16 x 9 with optional 2.35 cinema wide crop marks.

for over a century, the Original Aspect Ratio, of a production has been the original exposed film frame width x height.

For 35mm productions, almost every single movie shot with spherical lenses will expose the entire 1.37:1 film frame, but the director only actively composes for the 1.85:1 center portion that will be projected in theaters. The "OAR" of those movies is the composition ratio of 1.85:1, not the capture ratio of 1.37:1.

Absolutely no one would say that the "OAR" of, for example, The Silence of the Lambs was 1.37:1. The 1.85:1 theatrical ratio is the "OAR," because that's the ratio it was composed for.

Similarly, all Super 35 productions capture more information than is ever intended to be seen by viewers. The OAR of the Lord of the Rings movies is 2.40:1, not 1.37:1.

There are random instances where the OAR that the director composed for isn't projected the way he wanted theatrically, but those are rare.

For 35mm productions, almost every single movie shot with spherical lenses will expose the entire 1.37:1 film frame, but the director only actively composes for the 1.85:1 center portion that will be projected in theaters. The "OAR" of those movies is the composition ratio of 1.85:1, not the capture ratio of 1.37:1.

Absolutely no one would say that the "OAR" of, for example, The Silence of the Lambs was 1.37:1. The 1.85:1 theatrical ratio is the "OAR," because that's the ratio it was composed for.

Similarly, all Super 35 productions capture more information than is ever intended to be seen by viewers. The OAR of the Lord of the Rings movies is 2.40:1, not 1.37:1.

There are random instances where the OAR that the director composed for isn't projected the way he wanted theatrically, but those are rare.

I can confirm Josh's points. On every set I've ever been on, the dp and director are always composing for 2.35 (unless it's a TV show, wherein it's composed for 1.85). I certainly have never seen anyone compose for 1.37 or 4X3. Yes, the camera image may capture more info than what is being planned for in widescreen, but it screws up the composition that they labor for hours over. Good example is that Tom Cruise thing ("Knight & Day" I think?). There is SO DAMN MUCH empty space above and below (in 1.78) that it's actually distracting! I kept waiting for a plane or something to fly in, just to see all that dead area have something there! I'm sorry, but cropping (even a little) or otherwise altering a movie's composition is basically unauthorized editing of a movie. And it adversely affects how one experiences the movie. Which is why I can NEVER watch a wide movie on HBO. And now that Vudu is doing it, I wouldn't pay them dime to see it that way. It may not matter to these companies, but voting with the wallet is the only option some of us have. (Even though the guys in charge are so incompetent that they wouldn't even recognize such actions for what they are.)

Can you imagine an environment when the video biz actually gave a damn about the films? Or the consumer??? (Aside from screwing them over, that is.) Probably won't see that in my lifetime.

Which is why I can NEVER watch a wide movie on HBO. And now that Vudu is doing it, I wouldn't pay them dime to see it that way.

Unlike HBO, VUDU does not have a formal policy of cropping 2.40:1 movies to 16:9. They're merely stuck with whatever video transfer the studio provides to them. Some studios are better about providing OAR transfers than others.

While this is frustrating, VUDU fortunately offers a free 2-minute preview of any movie, so you can validate the aspect ratio before you rent.

I can confirm Josh's points. On every set I've ever been on, the dp and director are always composing for 2.35 (unless it's a TV show, wherein it's composed for 1.85)...

Just curious, what films have you worked on and in what capacity?

As a point of clarification, I used the term OAR in a post here and I believe Josh took issue with me because he uses a different definition of "Original" to mean that which the movie goer sees in the theater that was approved by the movie director. I know many critics wanting to sound authoritative use the term that way too. Doesn't make it correct. The discussion became a study in semantics and obfuscation about why we need to matte the ORIGINAL aspect ratio of the film frame to something about director's intent. I don't disagree with any of that. I always followed the director's intent as He is the boss!.

I'll repeat one last time so my use of "OAR" is well understood. As technical director and director of videography on many many projects, most under the direction of experienced producer-directors we always discuss the original aspect ratio as in reference to either the film stock or the camera's imager in video . When talking about the "director's intent" for the final release, it is how the editor will matte or crop the image from the ORIGINAL AR to the release version. Most directors I worked with will use language like "scope" or "full frame wide screen," or "Academy", while the more tech savvy directors will be more specific and actually instruct me, as the head editor, to matte it to "2.35 with bars" or to 16x9, or "4x3 pillared" for the release depending on the OAR of the film stock or imager. Tech savvy directors are rare as most are more artists than engineers, so they use words like " make it scope"

The only time I have ever seen the use of OAR to describe the final matted aspect ratio is when I read blogs and thread posts by non-technical movie review experts or movie viewer enthusiasts. I believe from their perspective, seeing a movie for the first time on the big screen, to them the original is that moment. They can only imagine the world those of us who made the production work in.

I said this would be my last post on this semantics debate. Nothing posted by others showed me you are wrong or right, just seeing it at a later entry point and not from the perspective of the very beginning of the creative and engineering process.

The debate as to whether full frame HDTV is better ( 16x9) or whether "scope" is better because it was how the movie first appeared in the theater is a debate I believe best done for each individual movie. However, my preference for 3D is the larger the image area projected in my home theater the better. So, I am biased toward 16x9 3D presentations. I respect that constant height home theaters have a different advantage I do not have. My theater is constant width.

And! ...UHD TVs and UHD front projectors' screens in full 2.35:1 (or 2.40:1) aspect ratio.
...Bring them on too, for only 2D and Cinemascope films. ...70mm and 35mm film pellicules.

Or! You want only two displays (front projection and flat screen panel TV) for your viewing pleasure:
you want a diag picture @ 90", pick a screen size of 120" just to be on the safe side.
- For that flat panel TV (plasma is best); 65" is the max.
- OLED or LCD LED: you want a diag picture of say 70", pick one that is 90" just to be on the safe side.

Then when watching aspect ratio movies from between say 1.78:1 to 2.40:1 (2D and 3D) you are covered.
And don't sweat those black bars, but make sure that they are truly black. ...A la KURO.

Eliminating picture information is not more involving for me. I'm too distracted by what's missing. Like halves of heads being cut off, etc. etc. When I can actually notice that picture is missing without even knowing the OAR, then AFAIC, the movie has been detrimentally altered.

Is Cameron cutting info on top and bottom of his films? ...Good stuff there?

Spielberg; what is he saying?

Lucas?

Captain America?

* Are they giving us less info for more money? Are they "chopping" their pictures to fit bad TV aspect ratio?
Can we see the top of the head of Godzilla? ...His feet?

I still have my 4:3 TV, and all I see is almost a perfect square, or with widescreen VHS tapes (FOX), a tiny picture in the middle from left to right and with half the TV black, a la Kuro. ...I need to sit two feet from it now. ...I'd rather use my smartphone.

If the movie director filmed his masterpiece in a certain screen aspect ratio for later on fit our screens; should he go to jail for what's missing (what he cut off)? How many of us know that we're missing some? How many are bothered by what reality looks like outside and inside our screens?

I prefer the aspect ratio that the film was shot in mind with, or the OAR as most use the term around here. I have a scope screen, but I sure as hell don't want a 1.78 film compromised from an aspect ratio perspective just to fill my screen and I hope nobody else would ask for that on the actual disc (crop, stretch, etc.....in your own setup if you need to fill your screen that bad).